So you are both saying that the ἂν has no force here? It really does seem to soften the statement though.
Hi Joel, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I can think of a concrete way to test that, without begging the question: e.g. one could collect examples of the construction with and without ἄν, and see whether there’s any difference, but you would need to be careful not to assume in advance interpretations that colour the test. I’m not sure to be honest: I simply take this as an idiom to look out for.
Cheers, Chad
Chad: Yes, I think we’re talking about the same thing. I just wanted to clarify some of these different και ει, καν ει, και ει τις, κτλ idioms. (I’m afraid there’s still much confusion in this thread—no fault of yours). Goodwin and Donovan might be too advanced for many of the users here, though it’s very helpful for you to post links to them.
Actually, the substitution of κἄν for simple και occurs much more frequently without ει. It’s a characteristic post-classical usage (so of no interest to Goodwin). It often takes the place of adverbial και (even), disambiguating it from conjunctive καί. (E.g., Acts 5: ἵνα ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ τινὶ αὐτῶν.) I think we see the domain of κἄν expanding already in Aristotle (as with several other Hellenistic developments).
Tugodum: That’s what I was trying to clarify in my post above (on which, let me know if there are any other questions). The LSJ and Goodwin sections apply more to my 2a and 2b. In 2b, for example, the ellipsis the LSJ is talking about would be κἂν εἰ μή δοκεῖ μηδενί —> καὶ εἰ μή δοκεῖ μηδενί, εἴη ἄν. This is what they mean by saying there is no verb in the apodosis (here, εἰσι) to which ἄν can belong. If you needed to concoct a “filled out” version of the Aristotle example (see my 3a + 3b), you could write, e.g., μέλιττα οὐ δύναται τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, οὐκ ἄν τοῦτο δύναιτο τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν…or even more outlandish: μέλιττα οὐ δύναται τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστιν, οὐκ ἄν τοῦτο δύναιτο τῶν ψόφων ἀκούειν. But that’s both unnecessary and un-Greek. Here, basically κἂν εἴ τι=καὶ εἴ τι.
Great thank you phalakros! Interesting on the post-classical Greek point (I’m less familiar with that period.)
Cheers, Chad
phalakros – For Acts 5:15, Zerwick & Grosvenor note: “κἄν = καὶ ἐάν if even it were only, at least”; which, if true, seems to imply that it is not equivalent here to simple καὶ, doesn’t it?
No, κἄν isn’t the same as καὶ ἐάν in the Acts ex. “At least,” “even,” “even if only” etc. are ok as translations. κἄν (without ει) is increasingly used adverbially in post-classical where you would find simple και in Attic.
Generally in post-class, και ει/και εαν is more often conjunctive (and if); ει και/εαν και more often concessive (even if). There is more overlap between και ει and ει και in Attic, hiatus being one factor…ει και avoids hiatus—you won’t find many Isocratean examples of κ. ε.—as does κἂν ει, which Demosthenes likes.
Note also that ᾱν/ἠν for ἐαν becomes less frequent. Fairly early on, you can also find non-Attic uses of εαν like in general relative clauses, e.g. ὅς εαν for Attic ος αν.
I personally would think that wide reading and sensitization is more likely to give an answer than data diving. Jebb and Goodwin had differing views on the point. Phalakros’ view seems to largely echo Jebb’s in his Appendix to Electra, while Goodwin saw it as actually having force, despite the construction (notice his “it would seem to follow that” from the Plato example).
Joel, thanks for this reference. I fail to see, though, anything in Jebb that Phalakros’ view might seem to echo. Phalakros, as I understand him, claims that it is quite normal for ἄν (in κἄν) to have no force; Jebb, as I understand him, claims, on the contrary, that a verb in either optative or subjunctive is normally implied, and where it can’t be, he either sees an anomaly or suspects a corruption. What have I missed?
Yes, you’re right. Jebb does seem to be saying that. Though he talks about the class II examples “where a simple καὶ εἰ would have sufficed”, in the paragraph at the top of 225, he does say that this is really a conditional usage, despite the mood, and that the Pol. 3. 6. usage actually differs (because it is not conditional).
I suppose that Jebb would suggest that same emendation to the μέλιττα example – just change it to καὶ εἰ – but now that we’ve got two sentences in the same author with the same usage, it does seem to be a little strained. In the Politics example, at least, I feel like the polite rhetorical uncertainty “and should we find many types of polities…” has an immediately implied “and obviously we do”, and there is nothing strange about the conclusion of the thought stating the actual certainty instead of continuing the polite rhetorical uncertainty.
Tugodum: Again, I suggest attempting to understand the different forms of expression outlined in my longer post (or as covered in a grammar like Smyth or CGCG) before proceeding with subtleties. And that only if you feel comfortable with regular conditions. These constructions can be tricky, so it’s important to be as precise as possible. Writing your own sentences and posting them for correction is a good way to practice.
I’m afraid Joel is further confusing things by bringing in the discussion by Jebb, which both of you apparently do not understand. [The disagreement between Goodwin and Jebb concerns a different use of καν, as in αλλὰ μοι παρες / καν σμικρον ειπειν (καν clearly=και εαν here as Jebb suggests and not και ᾰν.The examples in the paragraph that start with Plato Men. 72 C apply to my 2b—no disagreement between me, Jebb, Goodwin, or the LSJ there. The Lucian example applies to the post-Classical usage I referenced. The Aristotle example is related to 3b but not the same. I disagree with Jebb’s emendation.]
That’s correct about my initial misunderstanding of what Jebb was trying to say, which I admitted in my last post.
phalakros – “καὶ εἴ τι” idiom is easy; your statement that in my Aristotle passage κἄν = καὶ (i.e., αν has no force) is not. I’ve read your longer comment several times and failed to find any grounds given for it.
I’m glad you find it easy, though your comments and questions indicate the opposite. In fact, they suggest that you would benefit from more time with regular conditionals. You may find Dickey’s composition textbook helpful for this. I have never spoken of αν “having no force,” though you and Joel keep repeating this. Jebb also analyzes a related passage from the Politics in those terms and would no doubt have said the same about the Metaphysics example, though I think he goes too far. I’ve tried my best to explain things clearly, distinguishing the separate constructions that you seem intent on conflating. My longer comment is meant to clarify points of syntax—precisely the ones you were getting wrong in your posts, especially as other learners may have the same questions— in a simplified form, not argue an original thesis or present new research.
phalakros – “I have never spoken of αν “having no force,” though you and Joel keep repeating this.” – Sorry, I’ve misunderstood you (I wish you had mentioned this earlier). So, you believe that ἄν does has some force in my Aristotle passage? And if so, what force exactly? (BTW, I’ve gone through the whole of Dickey’s composition book, doing all the exercises.)
p.s. phalakros – “points of syntax—precisely the ones you were getting wrong in your posts”. If you saw particular mistakes in my posts, it would help me should you indicate them, so I could learn from you.
I can try. A few points:
(α) καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι, ἐὰν ᾖ
(β) καὶ ὰν <ἄλλο ᾖ> εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γένος ζῴων ἔστι
These sentences you wrote don’t make sense (as I pointed out). For (α), why are there two protases? For (β), why did you pair αν with the subjunctive (ᾐ)? Did you learn in Dickey about a conditional sentence with εἰ + pres indicative in the protasis and αν + subjunctive in the apodosis? Unless you mean not ᾰν [short α], but ᾱν [long α, equivalent to εαν, as in your first attempt]. In which case:
(γ) You seem to have mixed up which ἄν is at play in the LSJ entry you posted (plus Goodwin, my examples, etc.). κᾱν here is not καὶ + ἐάν but καὶ + ᾰν (i.e. the ᾰν applying to the apodosis of a condition). If so, my examples (1-2b) should clarify. If that won’t do, have you looked at Smyth 1766b + 2372-82? Looking at the example in 1766b:
ἔστιν ἄρα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, κἂν εἰ μή τῳ δοκεῖ, ὁ τῷ ὄντι τύραννος τῷ ὄντι δοῦλος
“κἂν εἰ is often used for the simple καὶ εἰ (2372) and without regard to the mood of the following verb; sometimes there is no verb in the apodosis to which the ἄν may be referred, as ““ἔστιν ἄρα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, κἂν εἰ μή τῳ δοκεῖ, ὁ τῷ ὄντι τύραννος τῷ ὄντι δοῦλος” the very tyrant is then in truth a very slave even if he does not seem so to any one” P. R. 579d (here καὶ εἰ μὴ δοκεῖ, εἴη ἄν is implied).”
(δ) Moreover, you have mixed up concessive uses of και ει/καν ει (to which the LSJ entry applies; see my 1-2b) and conjunctive uses (the Metaphysics example; see my 3a-b). [They are all conditional; don’t be misled by Joel here].
phalakros – Thanks for trying! But, to begin with your [α], what makes you think that εἴ there introduces a protasis? I meant it as part of the “καὶ εἴ τι” idiom. I.e., the meaning that I intended was: “and some other such kind…, if there is one.” How would you render this in Greek (using the “καὶ εἴ τι” idiom)?
Civility, please. We’re all at home and frustrated that we can’t go outside, but this is a lot more fun if it stays a friendly conversation about our shared hobby.
Joel – My apologies if this refers to me. English is not my native language; in all sincerity, I haven’t meant anything unfriendly.
I don’t mean to refer to anyone in particular, and it’s as good a reminder for me as for anyone else.